Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
John Pilger: How to justify the murder of a 10 year old boy
"Before - like many young soldiers - he [the soldier] says he was anxious to get his first 'kill' in a war. Now, he seems more mature."
04/25/03: (Znet) On 8 April, newspapers around the world carried a dispatch from a Reuters correspondent, "embedded" with the US army, about the murder of a ten-year-old Iraqi boy. An American private had "unloaded machine-gun fire and the boy . . . fell dead on a garbage-strewn stretch of wasteland". The tone of the report was highly sympathetic to the soldier, "a softly spoken 21-year-old" who, "although he has no regrets about opening fire, it is clear he would rather it was not a child he killed".
According to Reuters, children were "apparently" being used as "fighters or more often as scouts and weapons collectors. US officers and soldiers say that turns them into legitimate targets." The child-killing soldier was allowed uncritically to describe those like his victim as "cowards". There was no suggestion that the Americans were invading the victim's homeland. Reuters then allowed the soldier's platoon leader to defend the killer: "Does it haunt him? Absolutely. It haunts me and I didn't even pull the trigger. It blows my mind that they can put their children in that kind of situation." Perhaps guessing that readers might be feeling just a touch uncomfortable at this stage, the Reuters correspondent added his own reassuring words: "Before - like many young soldiers - he [the soldier] says he was anxious to get his first 'kill' in a war. Now, he seems more mature."
I read in the Observer last Sunday that "Iraq was worth £20m to Reuters". This was the profit the company would make from the war. Reuters was described on the business pages as "a model company, its illustrious brand and reputation second to none. As a newsgathering organisation, it is lauded for its accuracy and objectivity." The Observer article lamented that the "world's hotspots" generated only about 7 per cent of the model company's £3.6bn revenue last year. The other 93 per cent comes from "more than 400,000 computer terminals in financial institutions around the world", churning out "financial information" for a voracious, profiteering "market" that has nothing to do with true journalism: indeed, it is the antithesis of true journalism, because it has nothing to do with true humanity. It is the system that underwrote the illegal and unprovoked attack on a stricken and mostly defenceless country whose population is 42 per cent children, like the boy who was killed by a soldier who, says the Reuters story, "now seems more mature".
There is something deeply corrupt consuming this craft of mine. It is not a recent phenomenon; look back on the "coverage" of the First World War by journalists who were subsequently knighted for their services to the concealment of the truth of that great slaughter.
What makes the difference today is the technology that produces an avalanche of repetitive information, which in the United States has been the source of arguably the most vociferous brainwashing in that country's history.
A war that was hardly a war, that was so one-sided it ought to be despatched with shame in the military annals, was reported like a Formula One race, as we watched the home teams speed to the chequered flag in Baghdad's Firdos Square, where a statue of the dictator created and sustained by "us" was pulled down in a ceremony that was as close to fakery as you could get. There was the CIA's man, an Iraqi fixer of the American stooge Ahmad Chalabi, orchestrating that joyous media moment of "liberation", attended by "hundreds" - or was it "dozens"? - of cheering people, with three American tanks neatly guarding the entrances to the media stage. "Thanks, guys," said a marine to the BBC's Middle East correspondent in appreciation of the BBC's "coverage". His gratitude was hardly surprising. As the media analyst David Miller points out, a study of the reporting of the war in five countries shows that the BBC allowed the least anti-war dissent of them all. Its 2 per cent dissenting views was lower even than the 7 per cent on the American channel ABC.
The honourable exceptions are few and famous. Of course, no one doubts that it is difficult for journalists in the field. There is dust and deadlines and danger, and a dependent relationship on an alien military system. It is unfathomable which of these constraints contributed to the Reuters travesty described above. None, I suspect; for what it represented was the essence of propaganda. The protection of and apologising for "our" side is voluntary; it comes, it seems, with mother's milk. The "others" are simply not the same as "us".
Imagine the terror of a mother, cowering with her children on the road as the "softly spoken 21-year-olds" decide whether to kill them, or kill the old man failing to stop his car? The children are clearly "scouts"; the old man is, well, who knows and who cares? Now imagine that happening in a British high street during an invasion of this country. Absurd? That only happens in countries like Iraq, which can be attacked at will and without a semblance of legitimacy or morality: weak countries, of course, and never countries with weapons of mass destruction; the Americans knew Saddam Hussein was disarmed.
The corruption of journalism is most vivid back in the commentary booth, far from the dust and death. "Yes, too many died in the war," wrote Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer. "Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short. The death toll has been nothing like as high as had been widely feared. Thousands have died in the war, millions have died at the hands of Saddam."
Mark his logic, for it is at the heart of what is dispensed day after day, night after night. The clear implication is that it is all right to have killed thousands of people in the invasion of their homeland, because "millions" died at the hands of their dictator. The lazy language, the idle dismissal of human life - each life part of so many other lives - is striking. Saddam Hussein killed a great many people, but "millions"? - the league of Stalin and Hitler? David Edwards of MediaLens asked Amnesty International about this. Amnesty produced a catalogue of Saddam's killings that amounted mostly to hundreds every year, not millions. It is an appalling record that does not require the exaggeration of state-inspired propaganda - propaganda whose aim, in Rawnsley's case, is to protect Tony Blair from the grave charges of which many people all over the world believe he is guilty.
There is, for example, not a single mention by Rawnsley of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a direct result of the 12-year, medieval siege of Iraq conducted by America and backed by Britain - and enthusiastically by Blair. Professor Joy Gordon in Connecticut has spent three years studying this embargo as a weapon of social destruction. A preview of her voluminous, shocking work appeared in Harper's Magazine. She describes "a legitimised act of mass slaughter".
The protectors of Blair regard the entirely predictable crushing of a third-world minnow by the world's superpower as a "vindication". The great Israeli journalist and internationalist Uri Avnery wrote recently about this corruption of intellect and morality. "Let's pose the question in the most provocative manner," he wrote on 18 April. "What would have happened if Adolf Hitler had triumphed in World War Two? Would this have turned his war into a just one? Let's assume that Hitler would have indicted his enemies at the Nuremberg war crimes court: Churchill for the terrible air raid on Dresden, Truman for dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Stalin for murdering millions in the Gulag camps. Would the historians have regarded this as a just war? A war that ends with the victory of the aggressor is worse than a war that ends with their defeat. It is more destructive, both morally and physically."
According to Reuters, children were "apparently" being used as "fighters or more often as scouts and weapons collectors. US officers and soldiers say that turns them into legitimate targets." The child-killing soldier was allowed uncritically to describe those like his victim as "cowards". There was no suggestion that the Americans were invading the victim's homeland. Reuters then allowed the soldier's platoon leader to defend the killer: "Does it haunt him? Absolutely. It haunts me and I didn't even pull the trigger. It blows my mind that they can put their children in that kind of situation." Perhaps guessing that readers might be feeling just a touch uncomfortable at this stage, the Reuters correspondent added his own reassuring words: "Before - like many young soldiers - he [the soldier] says he was anxious to get his first 'kill' in a war. Now, he seems more mature."
I read in the Observer last Sunday that "Iraq was worth £20m to Reuters". This was the profit the company would make from the war. Reuters was described on the business pages as "a model company, its illustrious brand and reputation second to none. As a newsgathering organisation, it is lauded for its accuracy and objectivity." The Observer article lamented that the "world's hotspots" generated only about 7 per cent of the model company's £3.6bn revenue last year. The other 93 per cent comes from "more than 400,000 computer terminals in financial institutions around the world", churning out "financial information" for a voracious, profiteering "market" that has nothing to do with true journalism: indeed, it is the antithesis of true journalism, because it has nothing to do with true humanity. It is the system that underwrote the illegal and unprovoked attack on a stricken and mostly defenceless country whose population is 42 per cent children, like the boy who was killed by a soldier who, says the Reuters story, "now seems more mature".
There is something deeply corrupt consuming this craft of mine. It is not a recent phenomenon; look back on the "coverage" of the First World War by journalists who were subsequently knighted for their services to the concealment of the truth of that great slaughter.
What makes the difference today is the technology that produces an avalanche of repetitive information, which in the United States has been the source of arguably the most vociferous brainwashing in that country's history.
A war that was hardly a war, that was so one-sided it ought to be despatched with shame in the military annals, was reported like a Formula One race, as we watched the home teams speed to the chequered flag in Baghdad's Firdos Square, where a statue of the dictator created and sustained by "us" was pulled down in a ceremony that was as close to fakery as you could get. There was the CIA's man, an Iraqi fixer of the American stooge Ahmad Chalabi, orchestrating that joyous media moment of "liberation", attended by "hundreds" - or was it "dozens"? - of cheering people, with three American tanks neatly guarding the entrances to the media stage. "Thanks, guys," said a marine to the BBC's Middle East correspondent in appreciation of the BBC's "coverage". His gratitude was hardly surprising. As the media analyst David Miller points out, a study of the reporting of the war in five countries shows that the BBC allowed the least anti-war dissent of them all. Its 2 per cent dissenting views was lower even than the 7 per cent on the American channel ABC.
The honourable exceptions are few and famous. Of course, no one doubts that it is difficult for journalists in the field. There is dust and deadlines and danger, and a dependent relationship on an alien military system. It is unfathomable which of these constraints contributed to the Reuters travesty described above. None, I suspect; for what it represented was the essence of propaganda. The protection of and apologising for "our" side is voluntary; it comes, it seems, with mother's milk. The "others" are simply not the same as "us".
Imagine the terror of a mother, cowering with her children on the road as the "softly spoken 21-year-olds" decide whether to kill them, or kill the old man failing to stop his car? The children are clearly "scouts"; the old man is, well, who knows and who cares? Now imagine that happening in a British high street during an invasion of this country. Absurd? That only happens in countries like Iraq, which can be attacked at will and without a semblance of legitimacy or morality: weak countries, of course, and never countries with weapons of mass destruction; the Americans knew Saddam Hussein was disarmed.
The corruption of journalism is most vivid back in the commentary booth, far from the dust and death. "Yes, too many died in the war," wrote Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer. "Too many people always die in war. War is nasty and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short. The death toll has been nothing like as high as had been widely feared. Thousands have died in the war, millions have died at the hands of Saddam."
Mark his logic, for it is at the heart of what is dispensed day after day, night after night. The clear implication is that it is all right to have killed thousands of people in the invasion of their homeland, because "millions" died at the hands of their dictator. The lazy language, the idle dismissal of human life - each life part of so many other lives - is striking. Saddam Hussein killed a great many people, but "millions"? - the league of Stalin and Hitler? David Edwards of MediaLens asked Amnesty International about this. Amnesty produced a catalogue of Saddam's killings that amounted mostly to hundreds every year, not millions. It is an appalling record that does not require the exaggeration of state-inspired propaganda - propaganda whose aim, in Rawnsley's case, is to protect Tony Blair from the grave charges of which many people all over the world believe he is guilty.
There is, for example, not a single mention by Rawnsley of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a direct result of the 12-year, medieval siege of Iraq conducted by America and backed by Britain - and enthusiastically by Blair. Professor Joy Gordon in Connecticut has spent three years studying this embargo as a weapon of social destruction. A preview of her voluminous, shocking work appeared in Harper's Magazine. She describes "a legitimised act of mass slaughter".
The protectors of Blair regard the entirely predictable crushing of a third-world minnow by the world's superpower as a "vindication". The great Israeli journalist and internationalist Uri Avnery wrote recently about this corruption of intellect and morality. "Let's pose the question in the most provocative manner," he wrote on 18 April. "What would have happened if Adolf Hitler had triumphed in World War Two? Would this have turned his war into a just one? Let's assume that Hitler would have indicted his enemies at the Nuremberg war crimes court: Churchill for the terrible air raid on Dresden, Truman for dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Stalin for murdering millions in the Gulag camps. Would the historians have regarded this as a just war? A war that ends with the victory of the aggressor is worse than a war that ends with their defeat. It is more destructive, both morally and physically."
For more information:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
TOTALER KRIEG - KÜRZESTER KRIEG
This was the logo of Hitlers Blitzkrieg in the 2.world war. It was displayed on mega-canvas in the former SPORTPALAST/Berlin on february 18, 1943. Everybody with some historical knowledge knows that NS-minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, here asked the fascist crowd whether they wanted total war ("Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg"). And they DID! AS SOME DO TODAY - if only the surgical war is "as short as possible". We think today that we are more clever - but also the fascist crowd had got the impression as if the war would be over in short notice. Yet, this is not transported in the radio speech copies from the Sportpalast. It was, however, displayed recently in a photography accompanying the article on "Hitler's mephisto" in DER SPIEGEL 8/2003. Perhaps, we should be honest and talk about Bush's preemptive Blitz-doctrine (all resemblences with former persons unfortold)?
This was the logo of Hitlers Blitzkrieg in the 2.world war. It was displayed on mega-canvas in the former SPORTPALAST/Berlin on february 18, 1943. Everybody with some historical knowledge knows that NS-minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, here asked the fascist crowd whether they wanted total war ("Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg"). And they DID! AS SOME DO TODAY - if only the surgical war is "as short as possible". We think today that we are more clever - but also the fascist crowd had got the impression as if the war would be over in short notice. Yet, this is not transported in the radio speech copies from the Sportpalast. It was, however, displayed recently in a photography accompanying the article on "Hitler's mephisto" in DER SPIEGEL 8/2003. Perhaps, we should be honest and talk about Bush's preemptive Blitz-doctrine (all resemblences with former persons unfortold)?
Say you were shooting in the direction of presumed terrorists.
Call the murder of the boy collateral damage.
Call the murder of the boy collateral damage.
Total War:
We should remind ourselves that the Germans only declared total war after the Allies had done so at least one year earlier. The heavy air raids over Germany convinced its leaders that the country should be on a total war footing. With the indescriminant carpet bombing of German cities,which by the way was a war crime, and the demand for unconditional surrender on the part of the Allies, it did not require much to convince the population that total war was the only option, facsist or no facsist.
German war production finally reached its peak only in 1944, but alas it was too late.
In today's context, based on the justification of the latest Iraq war by the US Administration, A. Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939 was certainly legitimate. Let us also remind ourselves that at that time this was a regional conflict which became a much larger war after Britain and France to A. Hitler's surprise declared war on Germany.
We should remind ourselves that the Germans only declared total war after the Allies had done so at least one year earlier. The heavy air raids over Germany convinced its leaders that the country should be on a total war footing. With the indescriminant carpet bombing of German cities,which by the way was a war crime, and the demand for unconditional surrender on the part of the Allies, it did not require much to convince the population that total war was the only option, facsist or no facsist.
German war production finally reached its peak only in 1944, but alas it was too late.
In today's context, based on the justification of the latest Iraq war by the US Administration, A. Hitler's attack on Poland in 1939 was certainly legitimate. Let us also remind ourselves that at that time this was a regional conflict which became a much larger war after Britain and France to A. Hitler's surprise declared war on Germany.
Is it not amazing that the great democracy, the United States attacks a weakened country under the pretext of liberating its' people. How come the United States attacked Iraq, a country with a very much higher standard of morality? Will the United States spead its' filth and vulgarity to Iraq to make it safe from the moral strictures of Islam. Strange isn't it that those under Islam are very much closer to a moral code than those who practice this abomination called judeo-christianity. How can a country filled with all manner of immorality claim to liberate a country that is morally superior to it? The culture of the United States is smoke and mirrors, dedicated to the cheap thrill of pleasure. There is no substance to this facade, and slowly it will be shattered as a millstone is thrown into the sea with great force. Islam and its' adherants will judge western civilization and destroy it from the face of the earth. They have the patience, the numbers, and real motive.
This is a very interesting and thought provoking commentary. Certainly not only is Iraq higher morally, but it had a high level of overall intelligence, hospitals, water and electricity.
And look where "freedom" got them!
And look where "freedom" got them!
Michael - "but alas it was too late" .. hmm you have a uphill battle trying to argue that germany was A) slow to increace war production (it was higher than the allies for most of the war) or B) not evil.
feel free to try I guess Ill start off with "holocaust" the germans did it the allies didnt.. I recon I may have won the argument already.
Brian S. Baker - what is "moral"? I guess if iran and Iraq are moral then we dont want morality in the world. they fought a vicious war using all sorts of tactics. for no particular gain to either. If USSR and USA had been that moral we would all be dead.
John Pilger - a war that ends in the victory of the defender is more destructive.
A) it is a result of stupidity - if you cant win the war why did you bring about all of that destruction?
B) It requires the forces to march forward over some teritory and then retreet back across that same teritory (which is not their own so they may feel free to burn as they go)
Also a crushing or a capitulation is FGAR better than an even war. in terms of reducing the amount of death
feel free to try I guess Ill start off with "holocaust" the germans did it the allies didnt.. I recon I may have won the argument already.
Brian S. Baker - what is "moral"? I guess if iran and Iraq are moral then we dont want morality in the world. they fought a vicious war using all sorts of tactics. for no particular gain to either. If USSR and USA had been that moral we would all be dead.
John Pilger - a war that ends in the victory of the defender is more destructive.
A) it is a result of stupidity - if you cant win the war why did you bring about all of that destruction?
B) It requires the forces to march forward over some teritory and then retreet back across that same teritory (which is not their own so they may feel free to burn as they go)
Also a crushing or a capitulation is FGAR better than an even war. in terms of reducing the amount of death
Scottie, for your information, the Iran -Iraq war was a useful platform for weapons. The United States supplied biological and chemical to the Iraqis, while the Soviets, the other moral member of your world, prodded the Iranians with their little gifts. Now the Israelis were involved in this little war also. Also, The moral compass of the entire world, the U.S. supplied the Iraqis with the sattelite imagery of the Iranian troops. Neddless to say, these two warring members ended their war.
Now that the U.S. has given the Iraqis freedom from the secular regime of their C.I.A. asset Hussein, the Iraqis and the Iranians have an open border. Do you think this will lead to a strong alliance which will fight our superior morality? I am betting that it will.
Nevertheless, the winner of the war, writes the history coloring the enemy in the ever so popular shade of hate.
Cheers!
Now that the U.S. has given the Iraqis freedom from the secular regime of their C.I.A. asset Hussein, the Iraqis and the Iranians have an open border. Do you think this will lead to a strong alliance which will fight our superior morality? I am betting that it will.
Nevertheless, the winner of the war, writes the history coloring the enemy in the ever so popular shade of hate.
Cheers!
Just because they have more influence doesnt make them more evil. The US goal was "stability" I dont know what you would have done but most likely you would have caused incredible suffering.
The sSoviet goal was Comunism and security however they were rational enough torealise that major war was not going to help. The big danger as foreign affiars peopel know is a enemy who is not rational.
The United States supplied biological and chemical to the Iraqis,
- You have been listening to too many far left media sources. that is only true in the most dostorted of interpretations. The US military DID NOT pop over to iraq and go here is a chemical weapon "have fun!".
Now the Israelis were involved in this little war also.
- how was that?
Now that the U.S. has given the Iraqis freedom from the secular regime of their C.I.A. asset Hussein, the Iraqis and the Iranians have an open border.
You mean the US government is working against the CIA? make sense please.
Anyway There was no reason to kill hitler before he became the leader of the Nazi that would have just been murder but when he was killing millions of jews attempting to kill him was pretty jsutified. similarly with Hussein - a leader like hussein is not so bad considering the leaders all around him until he starts doing things like gassing kurds and mroe importantly invading soverign states. the rational thing is to treat him with at least diplomatic respect until he does that sort of thing them you oppose him EXACTLY what the US did. If you suggest anything else you clearly should stay as far away from foreign affairs as you can.
Nevertheless, the winner of the war, writes the history coloring the enemy in the ever so popular shade of hate.
- Sometimes they deserve it sometimes they dont. The fact that it is unclear is no reason to give up on logic altogether.
The sSoviet goal was Comunism and security however they were rational enough torealise that major war was not going to help. The big danger as foreign affiars peopel know is a enemy who is not rational.
The United States supplied biological and chemical to the Iraqis,
- You have been listening to too many far left media sources. that is only true in the most dostorted of interpretations. The US military DID NOT pop over to iraq and go here is a chemical weapon "have fun!".
Now the Israelis were involved in this little war also.
- how was that?
Now that the U.S. has given the Iraqis freedom from the secular regime of their C.I.A. asset Hussein, the Iraqis and the Iranians have an open border.
You mean the US government is working against the CIA? make sense please.
Anyway There was no reason to kill hitler before he became the leader of the Nazi that would have just been murder but when he was killing millions of jews attempting to kill him was pretty jsutified. similarly with Hussein - a leader like hussein is not so bad considering the leaders all around him until he starts doing things like gassing kurds and mroe importantly invading soverign states. the rational thing is to treat him with at least diplomatic respect until he does that sort of thing them you oppose him EXACTLY what the US did. If you suggest anything else you clearly should stay as far away from foreign affairs as you can.
Nevertheless, the winner of the war, writes the history coloring the enemy in the ever so popular shade of hate.
- Sometimes they deserve it sometimes they dont. The fact that it is unclear is no reason to give up on logic altogether.
Thanks for watching! Sean and Bill send their best wishes.
Sorry Scottie, I really don't listen to left wing mouth pieces. That means FOX News. If they are a controlled media, I rarely put up with them.
As to the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological, I am indeed right on the money. Haven't you ever heard of capitalism? What do you think makes the world go round? Money, and lots of electronic transfers. As to the Israelis, they are involved in many things you wouldn't even consider. They even attaked the USS Liberty in 1967 while it was in international waters. Try reading Body of Secrets by James Bamford.
According to Amnesty International, Hussein killed hundreds of his enemies a year. How many abortions do we have in the land of milk and honey per year? I realize that it is okay for the U.S. to abort over a million potential tax payers a year, but unborn babies are people too. Just ask Scott Petersen.
As to Hitler, sure he was evil, but he did fight the Soviets to stop communism and socialism. The U.S. and its' allies stopped Hitler to make the world safe for communism and the cold war. As to the number of people of the jewish faith killed in WWII, I don't know the true figure. Au revoir! Cheers!
As to the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological, I am indeed right on the money. Haven't you ever heard of capitalism? What do you think makes the world go round? Money, and lots of electronic transfers. As to the Israelis, they are involved in many things you wouldn't even consider. They even attaked the USS Liberty in 1967 while it was in international waters. Try reading Body of Secrets by James Bamford.
According to Amnesty International, Hussein killed hundreds of his enemies a year. How many abortions do we have in the land of milk and honey per year? I realize that it is okay for the U.S. to abort over a million potential tax payers a year, but unborn babies are people too. Just ask Scott Petersen.
As to Hitler, sure he was evil, but he did fight the Soviets to stop communism and socialism. The U.S. and its' allies stopped Hitler to make the world safe for communism and the cold war. As to the number of people of the jewish faith killed in WWII, I don't know the true figure. Au revoir! Cheers!
As to the US supplying Iraq with chemical and biological, I am indeed right on the money. Haven't you ever heard of capitalism? What do you think makes the world go round? Money, and lots of electronic transfers.
- It depends on how you handle blame. Most people would say that the fertilizer company was not responsable for timothy mcveigh however you apparently do think they are responsible. you also seem to blame capitalism for making it possible to "buy fertilizer". I guess if you dont value personal liberty or individual happyness then you may have a point ie we could have total state control of everything down to how you arrange your books on your own book shelf but moswt of us reject that.
Anyway soviet russia for example was one of the big traders in weapons - how come a non capitalist country was doing that?
As to the Israelis, they are involved in many things you wouldn't even consider. They even attaked the USS Liberty in 1967 while it was in international waters.
- that was an acident and it has been accepted that it was an accident by everyone who matters. Or do you thing that Israel was trying to start a war with the US and changed their mind half way through? You dont have to jsut show that they SHOULD have known it was a US ship to suport your argument you have to show that they have motive and intent. And you cant show either.
According to Amnesty International, Hussein killed hundreds of his enemies a year.
- As per your own argument as to how blame is attributed hussain is also responsible for the deaths of all of the peopel due to sanctions (we would agree with you here mostly) and all of the deaths in the iran war and all of the reductions in average life span deaths. that is ALOT more than hundreds per year.
How many abortions do we have in the land of milk and honey per year?
- - Your an anti abortionist?
well since we are onto specious red herrings --- how many potential humans do you kill by wacking off every day?
As to Hitler, sure he was evil, but he did fight the Soviets to stop communism and socialism.
- He just encouraged them to become a military super power (even more than before).
The U.S. and its' allies stopped Hitler to make the world safe for communism and the cold war.
- Er you mean they planed it? have you been into the wacky dacky again?
- It depends on how you handle blame. Most people would say that the fertilizer company was not responsable for timothy mcveigh however you apparently do think they are responsible. you also seem to blame capitalism for making it possible to "buy fertilizer". I guess if you dont value personal liberty or individual happyness then you may have a point ie we could have total state control of everything down to how you arrange your books on your own book shelf but moswt of us reject that.
Anyway soviet russia for example was one of the big traders in weapons - how come a non capitalist country was doing that?
As to the Israelis, they are involved in many things you wouldn't even consider. They even attaked the USS Liberty in 1967 while it was in international waters.
- that was an acident and it has been accepted that it was an accident by everyone who matters. Or do you thing that Israel was trying to start a war with the US and changed their mind half way through? You dont have to jsut show that they SHOULD have known it was a US ship to suport your argument you have to show that they have motive and intent. And you cant show either.
According to Amnesty International, Hussein killed hundreds of his enemies a year.
- As per your own argument as to how blame is attributed hussain is also responsible for the deaths of all of the peopel due to sanctions (we would agree with you here mostly) and all of the deaths in the iran war and all of the reductions in average life span deaths. that is ALOT more than hundreds per year.
How many abortions do we have in the land of milk and honey per year?
- - Your an anti abortionist?
well since we are onto specious red herrings --- how many potential humans do you kill by wacking off every day?
As to Hitler, sure he was evil, but he did fight the Soviets to stop communism and socialism.
- He just encouraged them to become a military super power (even more than before).
The U.S. and its' allies stopped Hitler to make the world safe for communism and the cold war.
- Er you mean they planed it? have you been into the wacky dacky again?
Scottie, if you are that gllible to believe that it was a fertilizer bomb which destroyed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, then there is little hope for you. Try reading David Hoffmans book, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror. You might go into a coma, the information might cause a brain infarction in your case.
As to the Iran -Iraq War, this was fought for another reason. Israel feared that Iraq was getting too powerful. Without the wapons of mass destruction provided by the God fearing Americans, then that bastion of a Talmudic democracy might cease to exist. Now Scottie, a fellow such as yourself might even know that Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons. They also have three Dolphin submarines and plenty of American aircraft to deliver those nukes. Will we attack them because of their WMD? They also have a terrible human rights record. Oh, that is right innocent Palestian women and children are not human, silly me, I forgot.
We in the United Staes may not kill very many of our citizens(other than abortions) instead we go over to other countries and kill their citizens. It is just easier that way, and it makes us feel good.
As to the motive for the Israelis attacking the USS Liberty, try this one. The 6 Day War was going on and the Israelis had just captured around 900 Egyptian soldiers. They then executed them in cold blood, all against the Geneva Convention. Oh by the way Scottie, the Liberty made a call for help with the one working antenna they had. Airplanes were scrambled and on the way to retaliate but a call from the White House aborted that. The Israelis attacked this intelligence gathering ship with the intention of killing all on board. They used torpeoes, they strafed, and they kept coming. It was a miracle that all on board were not murdered. You see Scottie, this was an NSA ship. They had 6 antennaes, five of which the Israelis disabled. This sounds premeditated. Also Scottie, why would the Israelis pay reparations for an accident?
If you resond Sottie, try not to be so crude and disgusting.
As to the Iran -Iraq War, this was fought for another reason. Israel feared that Iraq was getting too powerful. Without the wapons of mass destruction provided by the God fearing Americans, then that bastion of a Talmudic democracy might cease to exist. Now Scottie, a fellow such as yourself might even know that Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons. They also have three Dolphin submarines and plenty of American aircraft to deliver those nukes. Will we attack them because of their WMD? They also have a terrible human rights record. Oh, that is right innocent Palestian women and children are not human, silly me, I forgot.
We in the United Staes may not kill very many of our citizens(other than abortions) instead we go over to other countries and kill their citizens. It is just easier that way, and it makes us feel good.
As to the motive for the Israelis attacking the USS Liberty, try this one. The 6 Day War was going on and the Israelis had just captured around 900 Egyptian soldiers. They then executed them in cold blood, all against the Geneva Convention. Oh by the way Scottie, the Liberty made a call for help with the one working antenna they had. Airplanes were scrambled and on the way to retaliate but a call from the White House aborted that. The Israelis attacked this intelligence gathering ship with the intention of killing all on board. They used torpeoes, they strafed, and they kept coming. It was a miracle that all on board were not murdered. You see Scottie, this was an NSA ship. They had 6 antennaes, five of which the Israelis disabled. This sounds premeditated. Also Scottie, why would the Israelis pay reparations for an accident?
If you resond Sottie, try not to be so crude and disgusting.
OK.... IF it was a fertilizer bomb.. happy? It was jsut an example.
I see you are a useful idiot for right wing as well as left wing causes.
"Israel feared that Iraq was getting too powerful. "
- you are truely a gullible boy. but you keep on hiding out in your bunker waiting for the jews to come rushing over the hill.. at least it keeps the rest of us safe from you.
"Now Scottie, a fellow such as yourself might even know that Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons.
They also have three Dolphin submarines and plenty of American aircraft to deliver those nukes. Will we attack them because of their WMD? "
Haha you have just proven one of my points... NO we will not attack them because we are not as stupid as hamas. they are beyond the point where attacking them is feasible for us or for the palistinians. Similarly we will not try to Nuke China and we did not nuke the soviet union (and they did not do it to us). Iraq, clearly, was not past this point.
If you let every tom dick and harry get past the point where is it possible to fight them then the world is on the fast track to oblivion.
"They also have a terrible human rights record. "
- not as bad as most of the arab countries around them.. You can take that to mean how they treat jews - or how they treat each other or kurds or any number of other sub groups such as opposition parties.
If you can look at the rest of the world in the same way as you look at jews you will find many worse people to hate
"We in the United Staes may not kill very many of our citizens(other than abortions) instead we go over to other countries and kill their citizens. It is just easier that way, and it makes us feel good. "
- your points contradict eachother - a clear sign of an person who does not use logic. make up your mind.. are americans "insane people killing everything including themselves" or "evil people exporting their blood lust overseas to avoid having it at home" neither is true but at least try to be consistant.
"the Israelis had just captured around 900 Egyptian soldiers. They then executed them in cold blood, all against the Geneva Convention."
- OK here is a classic flaw in most conspitricy theories.... are you arguing that the US is a good guy who would react badly to a breach of the geneva convention (did israel sign that?) or is it a insane guy who would encourage israelis to get free shots at its servicemen... Or an evil guy who doesnt care about arabs?
They had 6 antennaes, five of which the Israelis disabled. This sounds premeditated.
- you are not arguing against the governments case so your point does not prove anything. they did not say the israelis acidentaly shot some bullets and they happened to fall on a boat.. go back to your room and have a think about your own arguments.
"Also Scottie, why would the Israelis pay reparations for an accident? "
- because the US was annoied and it was much smarter not to annoy the super power of the world any more than it already was. there is much precidence for this sort of thing even in the US legal system regarding individuals. You should know that.
I see you are a useful idiot for right wing as well as left wing causes.
"Israel feared that Iraq was getting too powerful. "
- you are truely a gullible boy. but you keep on hiding out in your bunker waiting for the jews to come rushing over the hill.. at least it keeps the rest of us safe from you.
"Now Scottie, a fellow such as yourself might even know that Israel has 200-300 nuclear weapons.
They also have three Dolphin submarines and plenty of American aircraft to deliver those nukes. Will we attack them because of their WMD? "
Haha you have just proven one of my points... NO we will not attack them because we are not as stupid as hamas. they are beyond the point where attacking them is feasible for us or for the palistinians. Similarly we will not try to Nuke China and we did not nuke the soviet union (and they did not do it to us). Iraq, clearly, was not past this point.
If you let every tom dick and harry get past the point where is it possible to fight them then the world is on the fast track to oblivion.
"They also have a terrible human rights record. "
- not as bad as most of the arab countries around them.. You can take that to mean how they treat jews - or how they treat each other or kurds or any number of other sub groups such as opposition parties.
If you can look at the rest of the world in the same way as you look at jews you will find many worse people to hate
"We in the United Staes may not kill very many of our citizens(other than abortions) instead we go over to other countries and kill their citizens. It is just easier that way, and it makes us feel good. "
- your points contradict eachother - a clear sign of an person who does not use logic. make up your mind.. are americans "insane people killing everything including themselves" or "evil people exporting their blood lust overseas to avoid having it at home" neither is true but at least try to be consistant.
"the Israelis had just captured around 900 Egyptian soldiers. They then executed them in cold blood, all against the Geneva Convention."
- OK here is a classic flaw in most conspitricy theories.... are you arguing that the US is a good guy who would react badly to a breach of the geneva convention (did israel sign that?) or is it a insane guy who would encourage israelis to get free shots at its servicemen... Or an evil guy who doesnt care about arabs?
They had 6 antennaes, five of which the Israelis disabled. This sounds premeditated.
- you are not arguing against the governments case so your point does not prove anything. they did not say the israelis acidentaly shot some bullets and they happened to fall on a boat.. go back to your room and have a think about your own arguments.
"Also Scottie, why would the Israelis pay reparations for an accident? "
- because the US was annoied and it was much smarter not to annoy the super power of the world any more than it already was. there is much precidence for this sort of thing even in the US legal system regarding individuals. You should know that.
Nessie, you make many valid points. Congratulations on having a great mind! It is too bad people just swallow everything the government pours out to them.
Good luck in your endeavors.
sincerely , Brian
Good luck in your endeavors.
sincerely , Brian
Scottie, I find that it is totally fruitless to try and reason with a person of your great intellectual caliber. Your reasoning and expounding of government pronouncements is truly astounding. You are a paragon model citizen.
Henceforth I will not waste my time reasoning with you for I am truly outclassed by your towering intellect.
Are you by chance working for the White House?
Yes Scottie, I am being sarcastic, but I just had to have a little more fun with the likes of you. Say hi to Forest.
Henceforth I will not waste my time reasoning with you for I am truly outclassed by your towering intellect.
Are you by chance working for the White House?
Yes Scottie, I am being sarcastic, but I just had to have a little more fun with the likes of you. Say hi to Forest.
of course.
Anyone who opposes you must be under government pay? hmm I wish you were right. Then I could just hang around here as a full time job.. sounds nice.
Correction you are TRYING to be sarcastic. you didnt tear any flesh at all there.
Correction you are TRYING to be sarcastic. you didnt tear any flesh at all there.
What, you mean you're not already!?!
Nothing can be learned with a mind that conforms to the established status quo.
That is just what I was saying you think.. you didnt need to say it yourself
Whatever,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
To all of those who advocated going to war against this mighty adversary Iraq, how do you feel now? Where are your bloody weapons of mass destruction? Where are the nerve agents, the chemical weapons, the biologicals? Oh, and that mass grave of 1500, do you think that it might possibly be victims from the last Gulf Slaughter? Victims from the proud American regime of Poppy Bush?
Remember, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. War at all costs is your motto.
Remember, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. War at all costs is your motto.
Just like you opposed the war whether or not WMD would be found most of the conservatives supported it irrespective of whether there were WMD or not.. so as to how do we feel about none being found? we dont care!
Infact it just makes the anti war people look irrelevant as they keep going on about it.
What iraq did wrong was it after invading kuwait and geting repelled it kept reneging on its ceasefire comitments and generally mucking us around while also being a bad leader. maybe he had WMD and he got rid of them.. I guess thats what we will say.. but in the end...
WMD? who cares?
Infact it just makes the anti war people look irrelevant as they keep going on about it.
What iraq did wrong was it after invading kuwait and geting repelled it kept reneging on its ceasefire comitments and generally mucking us around while also being a bad leader. maybe he had WMD and he got rid of them.. I guess thats what we will say.. but in the end...
WMD? who cares?
I thought this was a terrorist attack on a soverign nation, not a war.
Our leaders LIED to us in order to assure our compliance in their mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians for profit. If you DON'T care, you have no business living in a democracy. Get the f_ck out.
As I suspected, if you are a neo-con like our leader, or like many of the talking heads on am radio, it doesn't matter if you are dead wrong. It just felt good to slaughter innocent people who had a puppet dictator who outlived his usefulness to the U.S. With a shrug of the shoulders, a silly grin on your face and a pretentiousness about you, who cares? I happen to care. John Pilger cares, Robert Fisk cares, and many others with a small shred of humanity and decency left in us care.
Always look over your shoulder, for revenge will come. It will come in the day you least expect it and it will be devastating. These people will not forget how the mighty military of the U.S. liberated them. They liberated them from running water, from electricity, from hospitals, from medicine, from homes, and from family members. Wow, what a sweet liberation.
As to the puppet the US will put in place of Saddam, will he be any better? I sincerely doubt it.
Always look over your shoulder, for revenge will come. It will come in the day you least expect it and it will be devastating. These people will not forget how the mighty military of the U.S. liberated them. They liberated them from running water, from electricity, from hospitals, from medicine, from homes, and from family members. Wow, what a sweet liberation.
As to the puppet the US will put in place of Saddam, will he be any better? I sincerely doubt it.
So the righteous forces will remove the cancer of immorality from the world, smiting the decadence of modernity etc etc...
Clearly there's nothing worse than deriving pleasure from sex and consumerism, especially when there's the wonderful alternative of lots more fun from sectarian hatred; misogyny; cultural and religous chauvanism; doctrinal purity and torture in the name of God!
One bit of luck however - the believers will have killed each other long before they make it to the rest of us - Judeo -Jesus -islamic whatever - every cult has 9099 sub groups, and they hate each other with a vengeance reserved only for the righteous.
Clearly there's nothing worse than deriving pleasure from sex and consumerism, especially when there's the wonderful alternative of lots more fun from sectarian hatred; misogyny; cultural and religous chauvanism; doctrinal purity and torture in the name of God!
One bit of luck however - the believers will have killed each other long before they make it to the rest of us - Judeo -Jesus -islamic whatever - every cult has 9099 sub groups, and they hate each other with a vengeance reserved only for the righteous.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$390.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network